Learned Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. V.Venkata Laxmi

59 Taxmann.com 216Reported decision2015#25309 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing Learned Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. V.Venkata Laxmi

Subhadra Raju, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1035/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…, which was in turn followed by Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. H.K.Kapoor in [1998] 234 ITR 753 (Allahabad). Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Telangana in the case of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. V.Venkata Laxmi in [2015] 59 Taxmann.com 216 held that where investment in construction of a new building is made within 3 years of sale of the property, the benefit of Sec.54F is given. Thus, as seen from the facts brought on record, the assessee completed the construction in financial year 2013-14 for which no dispute and AO recorded in his order. Further, in the present case, the…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Haripriay Jagdish, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1532/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Murali Mohan, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: Mr.P.S.Prabhakar,C.A

Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1532/Mds./2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Mrs.Haripriya Jagdish, A-3, 3rd floor, Old No.17, New Income Tax, Non corporate circle -15, No.18,11 Crescent park Road, Chennai 600 034. Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [PAN ACLPH 5475 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क"…

R.Upendran (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1188/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

…, which was in turn followed by Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. H.K.Kapoor in [1998] 234 ITR 753 (Allahabad). Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Telangana in the case of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. V.Venkata Laxmi in [2015] 59 Taxmann.com 216 held that where investment in construction of a new building is made within 3 years of sale of the property, the benefit of Sec.54 is to be given. Thus, as seen from the facts brought on record, the assessee completed the construction in December, 8 2006 as evidenced by the letter dated 19.03.2017 issued by M/s.Arun Excello builder. Furth…